Author
|
Topic: Any good books against ID?
|
Philip
Member (Idle past 4723 days) Posts: 656 From: Albertville, AL, USA Joined: 03-10-2002
|
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Andya Primanda:
[B]Anyway,one thing that made me deny ID (for theological reasons) is that evolution can be used as a scapegoat for bad/flawed design, rather than blaming God. Evolution is neither omnipotent nor intelligent; that way we won't have to deny God if we see flaws in nature. We should not suspect God of doing nasty things; that is where I find the concept of evolution useful. For instance, people can be killed by their appendix; why blame God for putting it there? Blame evolution. B][/QUOTE] Is this the only motive, Andya? The primordial cause of evolution, with all its randomness and tentative natural selections, is God the Designer, is it not? For the Designer must have infinite understanding (as per Ps 147, perhaps in the Koran as well), comprehending all elements, relations, force-vectors, etc., past, present, and future ... Else God is not all-powerful, deterministic in foreknowledge, etc.
|
Andya Primanda
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 32 of 38 (12567)
07-02-2002 1:17 PM
|
Reply to: Message 31 by Philip 07-01-2002 11:48 PM
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Philip: Is this the only motive, Andya? The primordial cause of evolution, with all its randomness and tentative natural selections, is God the Designer, is it not? For the Designer must have infinite understanding (as per Ps 147, perhaps in the Koran as well), comprehending all elements, relations, force-vectors, etc., past, present, and future ... Else God is not all-powerful, deterministic in foreknowledge, etc.
Philip, I couldn't say it better myself! That is also my motive. God as I try to know him is IMO the prime mover of evolution, and He is constantly creating novelties in this world. About evolution as scapegoat: well, it's not my main motive. I'm interested in how God created the world and pursue that knowledge through conventional science. 'Evolution as scapegoat' is just a thought I picked up along the way, which may be used to preserve the integrity of God within my mind by letting evolution deserve the credit for dirty work.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 31 by Philip, posted 07-01-2002 11:48 PM | | Philip has replied |
Replies to this message: | | Message 33 by Philip, posted 07-03-2002 12:06 AM | | Andya Primanda has not replied |
|
Philip
Member (Idle past 4723 days) Posts: 656 From: Albertville, AL, USA Joined: 03-10-2002
|
Very well. I'll return to discuss later. (Preparing for a week's journey) Philip
|
Zhimbo
Member (Idle past 6012 days) Posts: 571 From: New Hampshire, USA Joined: 07-28-2001
|
quote: Originally posted by Tranquility Base: ^ Well if you want to believe that time is the answer for the origin of Ecoli's hundreds of metabolic pathways, the human immune system or bat echo location then each to his own faith. Behe of course points out the folly of that stand.
I didn't say time was "the answer". I said common sense is unreliable in these circumstances.
|
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: 12-20-2001
|
YEC is impossible to take out. Maybe you confused grance and faith. These are for me sometime hard to have had teased without sin, a part. Maybe you took Satan out? Please understand me. I created videos where I was uncommitted to ANY side (5 for me) and later tried to take out each side to see what was left. Ex nihlio could be taken out but I find acutally when I started but did not finish thinking of it that ID is acutally easier to "what you say" 'take-out'. If it was Chinese food that too would be salted for the sugar that rather goes in the coffee house discussion. [This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 07-12-2002]
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[B]Andya, I'm currently reading Behe and all he talks about is common sense so just look for books that violate common sense and you've found it. [/QUOTE] It violates common sense that the Earth is spinning really quickly, and it violates common sense that the Earth is flat, but this doesn't mean that the Earth doesn't spin or that the Earth isn't a sphere. Many, many, many things in nature go against our "common sense". That's why the scientific method was developed; to compensate for our human limitations and tendencies to be misled by our notions of "common sense". ------------------ "We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow- minded." -Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"
|
caporale
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 37 of 38 (28151)
12-30-2002 9:03 PM
|
|
|
I would like to point you to my book, Darwin in the Genome, which is the subject of another thread. Although I do not discuss ID directly, I do describe how, through natural selection, a form of intelligence about the world emerges within genomes, without the requirement for an external source of design. Although I have not read Behe's book, I gather from summaries that he suggests that the blood coagulation system is an example of one that required ID to evolve. Interestingly, it was when working with serine proteases [blood clotting enzymes are serine proteases] that I began to consider that the mutation rate could be varied [by natural selection] along a sequence of DNA.
|
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: 12-20-2001
|
|
Message 38 of 38 (28218)
12-31-2002 3:48 PM
|
Reply to: Message 37 by caporale 12-30-2002 9:03 PM
|
|
I wonder if your work on "rates" will eventually vindicate Croizat who resisted in his life, Mayr's insistance that he attend to "consensus" rates of mutation. Croizat had set up a complex response to the reigning Darwinins by refering to bird speciation in time cycles that Mayr seemed unwilling to accept or unable to comprehend. Gareth Neslon's discussion of endemisms relative to ichythology however was not sufficent to get the "genetic block" difference between Mayr vs Croizat and Croizat vs Mayr ahead ornithologically (in my opnion) to which, the work in ancestral area biogeography seems to owe a cause. I wonder if electrotonics do not explain some aspects of motion relative to blood, that, have gone under theorized due-to the seperation of physics and chemistry that genetics seems to have fostered (Dunn) to some extent at least historically.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 37 by caporale, posted 12-30-2002 9:03 PM | | caporale has not replied |
|